Lies Lying Liars Tell

Last week, I explained why lying liars lie: they believe it’s okay to abuse the truth if what they consider a Big Truth is advanced in the process. Morgan Spurlock was, by his own admission, an alcoholic for decades, yet allowed the world to believe eating at McDonald’s for 30 days trashed his liver. I suspect he told himself it was okay to lie, since McDonald’s is an evil corporation that sells unhealthy food.

I’m convinced the world of nutrition research is full of lying liars telling lies. And most of the lies they tell are about the dangers of eating animal foods.

I understand when vegans who are scientific illiterates insist meat will kill us. The poor little dears don’t know any better. Yesterday on Twitter, I broke my rule about arguing with idiots and had some back-and-forth exchanges with a vegan. It was, of course, the same old, same old. The vegan cited a couple of observational studies as proof that meat is deadly.

Since this was all in response to a tweet in which I mentioned Tim Noakes, Professor Noakes replied to the vegan as well. He explained that observational studies don’t prove cause and effect. The vegan’s reply? Saying “observational studies don’t count” is just semantics. The evidence is very strong.

Yes, you read that correctly. A guy who thinks the difference between clinical and observational studies is just a matter of semantics was arguing about science with Tim Noakes. It was like watching a child who’s learned to play three notes on a recorder arguing about music theory with Mozart.

Anyway, we can forgive the vegan. He was simply regurgitating what the vegan preachers always say and doesn’t know enough to recognize how little he knows. I don’t believe he was being intentionally dishonest.

But then there are the lying liars — doctors and researchers who simply can’t be that ignorant. And yet they ignore all the contrary evidence — not to mention the principles of basic science — and continue to tell us animal foods will kill us.

Why? I can think of two reasons. The first is that they believe eating animals is immoral. That’s certainly the case with the loonies at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

PCRM is, of course, an organization founded to promote veganism, not a group of concerned doctors. Only a tiny fraction of its members are physicians. Dr. Neal Bernard, the founder, grew up on a cattle ranch and now preaches about the dangers of eating meat. Perhaps Freud would have something to say about that. What I’ll say about it is that Dr. Bernard will say pretty much anything to scare people away from animal foods.

One of PCRM’s biggest campaigns warns people about the dangers of eating eggs. And yes, they can point to observational studies in which eggs are associated with diseases. But there are plenty of studies that show the opposite. For example, here’s the result of an observational study reported in USA Today:

The results showed people who consumed one egg a day carried a lower risk for cardiovascular disease and strokes compared to those who didn’t eat eggs at all.

Eating up to 12 eggs a week does not increase cardiovascular risk factors in people with pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Bernard is a zealot, but not an idiot. He has to know about the studies that show no harm from eating eggs. But that’s the little truth (otherwise known as the actual facts). He’s more interested in the Big Truth, which for him means that people shouldn’t eat animals because it’s immoral. So he’ll happily lie about the evidence.

Other lying liars have different motivations. As I recounted in a recent post, Walter Willett of Harvard is now claiming that one-third of premature deaths could be prevented if we all became vegetarians. One-third! That’s a huge, unbelievable number … especially since some large observational studies (like this one and this one) showed no difference at all in the lifespans of vegetarians and meat eaters.

Surely Dr. Willett is aware of those studies. So why would he tell us going vegetarian can have a huge effect on mortality that’s never been demonstrated in any study?

Perhaps this will explain it: Willett is now the co-chair of an organization called The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health. Here are some quotes from their website:

The Sustainable Development Goals cover topics ranging from urban life and education to oceans, inequality and gender.

Food production is notoriously energy-intensive. Reducing the amount of energy used in developed countries’ food systems is an important step to lower GHG emissions and environmental impact.

Food production contributes around a quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. By eating limited amounts of meat or none at all we can reduce methane emissions and improve our diets.

Reducing inequalities between countries and within societies themselves will require a huge boost for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Goal 5 is the gender equality stand-alone goal, but it can only be successful if women are integrated into each and every goal. That means goals around food too. There are many reasons to focus specifically on women’s nutrition: For example, healthy women are better equipped to break existing barriers to equality and they can nourish healthy babies.

There is also a reverse relationship between food and peace, justice, and strong institutions: A lack of these can also be a root cause of dysfunctional food systems, hunger and poor nutrition. Getting it right on food can both depend on this goal, and strengthen its attainment.

I could go on and on with quotes, but you get the idea. These are a bunch of social justice warriors, and Willett has become one of them. He believes eating meat is bad for the planet, bad for social equality, perhaps bad for women and children, etc., etc.

Now, I don’t care what your views on social equality, gender equality, peace, love, justice, clean water and free healthcare for all happen to be. If we’re talking about the effects of eating meat on human health, leave them at the door. Your social-justice goals shouldn’t figure into the discussion … unless you’re the type who believes it’s okay to abuse little truth in order to promote Big Truth.

Yes, I’m only speculating, but in light of his outlandish and unsupported claims about how we’d avoid one-third of all premature deaths by going vegetarian, I’m convinced Willett is promoting his Big Truth at the expense of actual facts.

No amount of alcohol, sausage or bacon is safe according to a new global blueprint on how to beat cancer.

Even small amounts of processed meats and booze increase the risk of a host of cancers outlined in World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) guidelines updated every decade.

The respected global authority has unveiled a 10-point plan to cut your risk of getting cancer by up to 40%.

Boy, human beings must be remarkably delicate creates if no amount of bacon or alcohol is safe. I hadn’t heard of the World Cancer Research Fund, so I went looking. I found this article from the Huffington Post illuminating:

Among ten recommendations on how to avoid cancer, the [WCRF] report argues that there is “convincing” evidence that red meat and processed meats increase the risk of colorectal cancer.

However, the largest ever study examining the link between colorectal cancer and red and processed meat consumption did not find any association. But it was never been published – even as 19 other studies on cancer and diet were published by the Pooling Project.

The fact is that their colorectal cancer study had more subjects than many of the other studies published by the Pooling Project – and the four-year delay in publication cannot but raise the question of whether their results just didn’t fit in with the nutritional beliefs of Harvard’s School of Public Health, one of whose senior figures – Dr. Walter Willett – has long recommended limiting red meat and who, coincidentally, is a board member of the World Cancer Research Fund.

I don’t believe I need to comment. Draw your own conclusions as to why Willett would perhaps block publication of a large study that found no association between cancer and red and processed meats.

The Atkins diet may raise the risk of fatal heart disease, according to a new study.

Analysis of more than 2,440 men found that those with a high protein intake faced a 33 per cent increased risk of developing heart failure, where the organ is unable to pump sufficient blood and oxygen around the body.

Those who ate the most protein from animal sources had a 43 per cent higher risk of heart failure compare to those in the study who ate the least.

It wasn’t a study of the Atkins diet at all. It was just another lousy observational study based on food questionnaires. Men who ate more animal protein had a slightly higher rate of heart failure. Okay, fine. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts (and you can keep the donuts) the men who ate more animal protein also ate more sugar, drank more alcohol, etc., etc. There was no mention whatsoever of any subjects being on a low-carb diet.

The New York Post ran an article on the same study titled Are high-protein diets quietly killing middle-aged men? Go look at the photo that accompanies the article. It’s a lean, muscular guy clutching his chest. Yeah, that happens all the time. Lean, fit guys have heart attacks because too much protein quietly kills them.

Here are some quotes from the article:

The American Heart Association study’s authors say there’s more research to be done on the connection between high-protein diets and heart failure.

However, it doesn’t look good for middle-aged men who gorge on burgers and bacon instead of whole grains and veggies.

In other words, the American Heart Association once again conducted an observational study and discovered that by gosh, they’ve been right all along. We should be eating more whole grains and veggies and stop gorging on burgers and bacon. Too much protein will give you heart failure.

Heart failure patients who consume more protein live longer, according to research presented today at Heart Failure 2018 and the World Congress on Acute Heart Failure, a European Society of Cardiology congress.

This study investigated the association between protein intake and survival in 2,281 patients with heart failure in the BIOSTAT-CHF study, which was conducted in 11 countries in Europe. Patients were divided into four groups according to the amount of protein they consumed, and then the association with mortality was assessed.

At the end of the median 21 month follow up period, 31% of patients in the lowest quartile of protein intake (40 grams or less per day) had died compared to 18% of patients in the highest quartile of protein intake (70 grams or more per day).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, including age and renal function, patients in the lowest quartile of protein intake had a 46% higher risk of death than those in the highest quartile of protein intake.

So I guess more protein will save your life if you’ve had heart failure … but a high-protein diet is the reason you had heart failure in the first place. Yeah, that must be it.

Or it could just be that lying liars lie. When doctors and researchers tell you meat will kill you, I think that’s the safe assumption.

A Swedish professor did a study right after the film where healthy students ate like in the film and the result showed that the liver took a beating from the soda. Not as bad as in the film but noticeable and that just in a month. Since then he’s done several more interesting studies, intervention studies. But they are small, shows the “wrong” result (fat is good, sugar is bad) and so he is ignored by the authoritie…

It’s interesting to speculate on how the doctor reached that conclusion. Given evidence that his patient had a sick, fatty liver – which I supposed is obtained by biopsy and other techniques – how could he determine what caused it?

Tony Edwards’ excellent and heavily-referenced book “The Good News about Booze” describes many studies that found, quite unexpectedly, that alcohol apparently not only does not do harm, but is strangely protective. Among other things, it seems to cut the risk of Fatty Liver Disease by half. Studies of hard-drinking North Italians established (much to the surprise of the scientists who did them) that even those drinking a bottle and a half of wine every single day had only a 13.5% chance of alcohol-induced liver damage.

Edwards also mentions an experiment in which scientists injected lab mice with a poison intended to cause liver cancer. When they also gave the mice alcohol, they “unexpectedly” found that it actually prevented cancer formation.

He concludes that moderate amounts of wine or dry spirits, taken regularly, have a similar effect to a LCHF diet: improvements in health and prevention or alleviation of common diseases better tahn can be achieved by any known medicine. He proposes calling his new cure-all “Medivin”.

I’ve learn to ignore observational study with time. What ever they show or mean. Since they are 80% of the time wrong in their conclusion. (Source : the article in your science for smart people speech) It just generate noise. Unfortunately, I’m the only person in my entourage that does so. And most people like to show me study as hard proof evidence. It annoy me as hell…

Dr. Barnard was thrilled to announce yesterday on Twitter that his organization successfully lobbied the State of California to pass a bill that required hospitals to offer vegan options on their menus.

“Last week, I explained why lying liars lie: they believe it’s okay to abuse the truth if what they consider a Big Truth is advanced in the process”.

Not that it excuses the behaviour at all, I might mention that this style of thinking goes back to Plato. He and his followers believed strongly that the only reliable conclusions were those reached by “pure” thought, as the senses could not be relied upon and Nature often seems deceptive. Therefore, the safest way of finding out how the world works is to make yourself comfortable, close your eyes, and dredge up the purest abstract Ideas you can find in your Mind and Soul. Those, obviously (to an idealist) are faint memories of the time before birth, when you enjoyed the immediate presence of God and rubbed shoulders with the Ideal Forms.

Thus Plato tells us that nothing we learn from observation is to be trusted: it is merely “probable opinion”. True knowledge must be deduced a priori, within the mind – facts such as that 2 + 2 = 4, or Pythagoras’ Theorem. Plato was so enamoured of triangles that, in “Timaeus”, he has the character of that name explain that everything in the material world is made up of tiny triangles. (I suppose he may even be right, if strings can be triangular).

Well Plato is right. See, for example, my comments on fructose above. Anything we know about the external world comes from inductive reasoning which is oft wrong. See also Taleb and Black Swan. All swans were white for Europeans until they discovered Australia. Are two best physical theories are Quantum and General Relativity which are contradictory, so at least one is incorrect.

I still trust the building I’m in to not crush me and I have plenty of experiences where that remains true, however it is a possibility. Highly probable is the best we have.

I find it amusing that a conclusion I have gradually reached after many decades of watching thrillers and police procedurals turns out to have much broader applicability.

Namely: never believe anything you are told absolutely. Always attach a probability estimate based on the source(s).

It is really amazing how few of the things I believed as a teenager turn out really to be true. Although some of them were: for instance, my mother told me that eating starchy and sugary foods would make me fat and sick. (Advice which she had from her mother and no doubt her grandmother – who might have read the “Essay on Corpulence”).

Most of the basic facts and theories of modern science were discovered by gentlemen of independent means, who studied natural philosophy because they enjoyed it, or thought it a worthy pursuit, or wanted to do some good. They were free to follow the phenomena wherever they led, and consequently laid the foundations of a whole series of sciences.

Today science is usually expensive, and can only be done in authorized laboratories or workshops. So it must be paid for by the only bodies with enough money: government or corporations. Both of which have very definite ideas about what they want the common folk to believe (or not). Hence science can no longer be trusted – even to an approximation. Each of us needs to be a scientist in his own right, specializing in the science of distinguishing truth from self-serving lies.

Agreed. I recently finished a book titled “Against the Grain” that makes that exact point. But social justice warriors are in favor of big governments, not opposed to them. Without a big, powerful government, how the heck are you going to compel people to behave as you want them to?

These anti-meat campaigners are incapable of explaining how foods we evolved eating can suddenly be killing us. A ketogenic diet, rich in animal products, literally saved my life by reversing the deterioration in my transplanted liver and kidney, and has been keeping me mostly healthy for nine years. Problems still occur, but I recover much faster than the doctors ever expect. Veganism is a religion, so trying to argue with them is pointless.

If they show them Forks Over Knives, they’ll have those people believing that in a breakfast of Lucky Charms, skim milk, orange juice and a bran muffin, that it is the milk that is the poor food choice, and that Cheez Its are dairy.

A lot of that crowd believes in the “bigger truth,” but another aspiration today is to be a little goody two-shoes. Saving the planet, protecting animals, promoting justice–they’re all the rage to boast about. It’s like a Victorian revival without the style. If the Roaring Twenties came back tomorrow, a lot of earnest nonsense would evaporate.

Willett is correct that humans becoming vegetarians will reduce the number of premature deaths – but that would be the “premature” deaths of the animals we eat.

As for eggs, I’ve eaten tons of them over the years. I have chickens so when they are laying well we eat a lot of eggs. I have eggs for breakfast daily & right now we’re eating eggs for lunch 2-3 times a week – it would be more often but husband isn’t as fond of eggs as I am. We’re fine – & that’s my own observational study. 🙂

Vince Gironda use to have his weightlifting clients consume 3 dozen eggs per day, often in the form of a protein shake with heavy cream of half and half (easier to drink that many than eat them). He believed that the amount had an anabolic effect. I tried that for a short while but got bored with it. I’m still good with my 4-6 a day in an omelette or hard boiled.

Yeah, it’s a short term thing that he never recommended anyone do full time. He was also a proponent of a steak and egg diet which he never recommended be a long term thing either, yet he did it for 9 months at one point. He was definitely protein/fat and limited his carbs to vegetables.

The elephant in the room is that grain farmers with their 400 hp tractors and 600 hp combines use huge quantities of diesel, not to mention all the sprays. Far far lower inputs for grazing livestock – and permanent pastures have much more ecology. Of course the slaughter of insects and the birds that feed on them is of no importance in the vegan worldview. Better living through chemistry.

Also the fact that they are using data for feedlot cattle and not pastured cattle. “Oh, you could feed lots and lots of people with the grain used to fatten up one cow!” First, that one cow will provide about 440 pounds of meat, which will feed a lot of people, Second, the cow isn’t supposed to be eating grain in the first place. Put all those people out in a pasture and see how long they last.

Vegetarianism has a reputation (fairly or not) for being healthy, and so it attracts people who care about their health. Compared to the population as a whole, vegetarians exercise more, drink less, consume less junk food, are more likely to take vitamins, etc., etc.

Now add in the fact that 75% of vegetarians become ex-vegetarians within 10 years. Most-cited reason? Health issues. So who’s left to be counted as a vegetarian in a long-term study? People who are 1) more health-conscious than the general population, and 2) didn’t experience health issues that prompted them to go back to eating meat. It’s what’s known as “survivor bias.”

They’re not just self-selected group; they’re a self-selected group twice over. They ought to live much longer than the population as a whole. But they don’t, which should tell us something.

I thought being vegetarian would be good for my health, and I tried to learn everything I could and do everything right, but my three major attempts at vegetarianism left me feeling and probably looking like something that had sprouted under a board.

Same here. I became one when I was 16. One friend was vegetarian and the other was vegan. I thought they were both doing well so why not try it. My mom use to say the vegan looked like “death warmed over”. The vegetarian to this day is fat, bloated and with a purple tint to his complexion.

I lost 30 lbs. in one month and my teachers use to tell me I didn’t look good. And I didn’t feel good. I was depressed, tired all the time. My grades slipped significantly and I spent more time out sick from school than any point in my life.

Tom,
the “Sustainable Development Goals” refer to aims within the UN Agenda 21 (now 2030) goals of basic control of the planet and its resources – including human. Rationing of land and food are among the most basic of the plans disguised as concern for the Earth. the climate change scam is part of this.

YOu can get the booklet from the UN outlining the goals or check the UN.org website. You can get the real meaning of it all from many sources but one of the most comprehensive is Rosa Koire’s book/youtube video Behind the Green Mask. I recommend you check it out asap. It’s actually not a big book and if you watch the video as well you’ll have understood the subject within a couple of hours or so.
Part of the big vegan push ois to ration land and resources and save the good stuff for the nomenklatura – various self-styled “elites” worldwide.
ICLEI – International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives is the implementation arm via city and local councils worldwide.

Caveat – while Rosa Koire is great on the UN stuff she seems also to be a truther so just ignore anything she puts out about 9/11. She is accurate about the A21 stuff as she came across it years ago while doing her job as a commercial land appraiser.
There are tons of refs about this but I figure you’re too busy doing productive things to dig thru them all! 😉

“she seems also to be a truther so just ignore anything she puts out about 9/11.”

I always (really: ALWAYS — that’s not an exaggeration!) find that people who disparage as “truthers” the folks who HAVE looked into 911 are the folks who have not bothered to look. But I suppose it’s like the folks who read or watch a news story about which they actually have real, first-hand, “I was there,” knowledge and get frustrated or angry at the stupidity — or misdirection / lying of the “news reader” “reporting” the story they know about — STILL turn the page or channels and think every OTHER story in the paper / on the news is true and accurate.

Certainly there are conflicting (and conflictive) sides and groups. I describe the problem as sorting among the INformation, DISinformation, and flat-out wrong information. But, that there IS disinformation and crazy information out there does not IN ANY WAY remove or discredit the actual scientifically based, mathematically valid information that TPTB — or people hoping to put down “truthers” — are working to put in the forefront of ‘public’ ‘knowledge.’

Look at this current subject of Tom’s many many excellent blog posts, speeches, and movies! Since you find Tom’s stuff to be valid — you don’t insult HIM as a “food truther”! And, he very often “shows his work.” So do many, many of the people you carelessly disparage as “truthers” — which means, if the what-ever-it-is info agrees with your preconceptions, then the speaker/provider of that info is a good guy. If the info disagrees with your own info — or your own bias — then the speaker/provider is an ill-informed or idiotic liar.

I once chastised a friend who said ‘it was 19 arabs’ (at least 7 of whom are still alive?!). I barked that this was proof that he had not looked into the 911-thing, and saying that made his (solid, valid, well-based) knowledge in other areas ‘suspect.’ He said — and I agreed — that he did not have TIME to look into it! Absolutely — I supported him 100% in not having the time!

“So,” said I: “say, when you are asked: I don’t have TIME to look into it in this life, so I cannot say. You can add, or not as you wish, ‘but since I know “our” government lies and lies and lies again to us about everything; I am willing to consider that it’s unlikely they are telling the truth about the 911 event.'”

Until you have DONE the research: read EVERYTHING (or a huge proportion of it) and winnowed such grain as you can find validation for (which grain you would immediately feed to the chickens) from the chaff (which you would use for their bedding!); then helping the GOVERNMENT to castigate, ridicule, and marginalize people who hold a different opinion to the GOVERNMENT’S opinion (on ANYthing!) speaks volumes about your biases, and not much at all about the actual event or information. (As Gore Vidal (was it?) used to say: “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’m a conspiracy analyst!”

Whatever turns you on. If you want to deny jihad, go for it, i’m not arguing with you about this here as i come for science education not political eccentricity – and I’m being polite about this because I respect Tom.
Don’t reply to me because this is my last post on this subject and I will not respond.

I used to know several relatively elderly diabetics who had been put on low carb diets back when it was SOP and unaccountably never taken off them and put on high carb.

They are dying off now – of old age, not diabetic complications. One of them got to be 89 by which time he had been Type 2 for 42 or 43 years, and during that time his diabetes never progressed in the expected way.

Then of course there are Type 1s like Bernstein and not a few others.

These kids will never live that long or that well. Well the ones on Type 1 Grit etc. will.